Results 781 to 810 of 1492
-
2012-09-06, 01:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I feel ya, but I wonder if you might not be in a vocal minority? I could be wrong, but I would guess a lot of D&D fans want story and setting, not just mechanics.
It is my conjecture that the term "Dungeons & Dragons" evokes a great deal of flavor in most people's minds, and they buy into the game as much for that flavor (i.e. "fluff") as much, or perhaps moreso, than for the mechanics.
Just a gut feeling, obviously.
Small point - they more or less got rid of Saving Throws (no more Will / Reflex / Fortitude) and instead replaced them with reaction ability checks.Last edited by JoeMac307; 2012-09-06 at 01:38 PM.
-
2012-09-06, 01:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Gender
-
2012-09-06, 01:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
This sort of discussion has come up before, actually. WotC's sales numbers for their 3e books show that mostly-crunch books outsold mostly-fluff books by a large margin, with the exception of main campaign setting books. I'll see if I can find the discussion again (a bunch of forums are blocked at work), but maybe someone else can link them in the meantime.
My group, at least, has been optimizing to the extent possible since 1e. The level of customization in 1e is nowhere near that of 3e or 4e, but there were still splatbooks, there were still differences between class power (cavalier, anyone?), you could craft items, you could seek out specific spells, and so on. When 2e came around, there were kits, there were the Player Options books, and there were more splats. Again, it's nothing compared to 3e or 4e, the gaps between classes were much smaller, and it was a hell of a lot more difficult back in the day to get the spells and items you wanted given the danger and costs of crafting, but the idea that in AD&D you just picked a race and a class and completely ignored mechanical aspects of your character while the DM dropped stuff in your lap doesn't match my experiences.
-
2012-09-06, 01:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Emphasis mine.
That is what I meant - I think people care about the fluff in the main campaign setting books, and I would include the primary rule books (PHB, DMG and MM) in that category.
The splat books are definitely more about the crunch, which is what they are all about, and will now be marketed as new "modules" to add on to the basic rules of D&D Next. That is my thought.
Everyone buys the primary rule books, not everyone buys the splatbooks. Therefore, the primary rule books have to have some flavor / fluff that is recognizably "D&D".Last edited by JoeMac307; 2012-09-06 at 02:05 PM.
-
2012-09-06, 02:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Which I am not opposed to. I'm still a huge fan of XPH and ToB also has its own considerable fanbase.
But other than the Complete line, these don't appear to cause nearly as much rules bloat to me. They are alternative options but mostly leave the existing material unaffected. If you play a psion, you have your one book to work with, if you are a warblade you have another one. But it's this mentality of combining obscure material from six different sources that I really don't like. Then it starts to get about beating the system and the narrative aspects completely falls into the background.
I much prefer the approach, which seems to be highlighted a lot by the devs recently, of approaching character building from the narrative side, asking the classic questions "where do I come from, who am I, where do I go to", and then looking for a way to have these things reflected in the characters mechanical stats.
While of course I can not deny anyone to say "I noticed when you combine A with B and C, they all aplify each other. Let's build that and unleash it on monsters", but I think this should not be the style that the books portray.We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-09-06, 02:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I dunno, I think the main books should be fluff-less unless they're going to go full out and have a default campaign setting. You really can't go halfway, good fluff has to be integrated into the setting to work. Otherwise it's deprived of its context and just gets in the way of worldbuilding when people want to change something.
-
2012-09-06, 02:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I think some fluff will always be there. For example, just describing dwarves as good miners and metalworkers is fluff, but that will (almost definitely) always be one of the default descriptions for dwarves in the PHB for this edition of D&D, or any edition that ever comes out.
I don't think that means there has to be a full on default campaign setting, though. I think it is best if the designers give each race, class, background and specialization some fluff, give bare bones of a basic (but not DEFAULT) pantheon and cosmology, and offer some insight on a few varieties of "typical" D&D societies.
Too much fluff can be very limiting, but most people need some fluff to help with their worldbuilding. Having only mechanics seems too daunting to me, personally.
-
2012-09-06, 02:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
His numbers are all correct, he's just looking at it in terms of progression per level.
ie you're saying "At level 1 you gain 1 feat how is that x4?". He's looking at it as "The general progression is one feat every 3 levels. So a 1st level character is starting with 1.33 feats rather than the .33 he would if you weren't starting with a feat". Similarly, he's looking at Good saves giving +.5 every level, and thus level 1 good saves have 2.5 instead of the expected .5, so x5 at level 1.
Anyways, WotC tried making starting characters more powerful, it was called 4e, and there were a lot of complaints about combat taking two long, and the players being invincible. So in this edition they are turning things down. Characters are relatively fragile at all levels, but between hit dice and powerful healing they should still be able to adventure for awhile before running out of steam. They are trying to make it so combat is dangerous, without making the PC's run home and rest every encounter.
By definition, level 1 is the starting point. You may be suprised to find many people like playing characters who are only slightly better than an average person, slowly gaining in power until they become like gods. You can certainly start at a higher level, and I'm sure those rules will be around eventually, but the option to start at level 1 should both exist and be the default. From a design standpoint, it's easier to add something than take it away, and it's easier to make something stronger than make something weaker. That's why no magic items is going to be the base, and they'll have rules for making encounters tougher based on how many magic items you're giving them.
However, levels 1-3 would still be presented, and still be an option for people who wanted to play that. A level 1 Wizard however would have 2+con hp, a cantrip or two, +0 to all saves, no feats and 2+int skill points (rather than x4). The level 4 wizard would be basically a 3.5 level 1 wizard with some more hit points.
You say not everyone wants to have stronger low level characters, that's exactly what he's proposing. Having really low level characters be more like normal people, not getting a bunch of free stuff at level 1. The game might assume a default starting position of level 4 because that's closer to the power level many people like, but it would still be wholly possible for a group to choose to play a group of level 1 inexperienced mooks and work their way up to adventurer status.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2012-09-06, 02:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I hate to bring the sorcerer bloodline stuff up again, but it's a great example of what I'm talking about. Take this one line in the PHB:
Some sorcerers claim that the blood of dragons courses through their veins. That claim may even be true in some cases - it is common knowledge that certain powerful dragons can take human form and even humanoid lovers, and it's difficult to prove that a given sorceror does not have a dragon ancestor.
If you want to have sorcerers that work in a different way, you have to actively fight against this player perception. The biggest problem with worldbuilding in D&D is you often have to spend more time talking about what isn't true than what is. This is a very, very bad thing in a game that isn't supposed to have a default setting, and going halfway with the fluff just gives you the worst of both worlds.
-
2012-09-06, 02:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I see your point... but how do you strip out ALL of the fluff? It seems impossible. You just hand charts to new players and DMs with titles like Fighter and Rogue, and descriptions of the abilities / powers / feats / spells, etc, that can be used, and say "Figure the rest out yourself?"
Kinda like the old days, where if you started at level 1 and actually made it to level 4 or 5, that was a character worth keeping.Last edited by JoeMac307; 2012-09-06 at 02:54 PM.
-
2012-09-06, 03:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Yeah, basically what the SRD does. Personally though my preferred solution would just be to have a default setting.
Kinda like the old days, where if you started at level 1 and actually made it to level 4 or 5, that was a character worth keeping.
Here's what I would prefer: Keep level 1 to mean what it meant in 4E, and have negative levels or something for people who want to play really, really fragile characters. Introduce character creation starting from level 1 first in the books, then talk about negative-level play in another section later.
-
2012-09-06, 03:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
-
2012-09-06, 03:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Meridianville AL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
In that case it's times INFINITY, because you get a feat every third level by normal progression, and that says you shouldn't get one at level 1. Level 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18,... follows a consistent pattern. Level 1 BREAKS that pattern, it breaks it by giving you EXACTLY what you'd get by level 4 in the normal pattern. That is, you have one feat and are 2 levels away from your second.
So you're insisting on infinitely better again? But that's STILL WRONG, you get half a point of save bonus per class level. How many levels do you need at that rate to have a +2 and get another +1 next level? Five.
Which again just means the class is front loaded.
Not in any edition prior to third.
and depending on the campaign they may continue to get it.
0 level spells are not a whole level a spells, and weapon proficiencies are normal.
Like I said, most the numbers you put out are either wrong or meaningless.
If every character gets something at level 1, that's not really something of note. The problem is when a class provides a lot of front loaded unique abilities for multiclassing.
Front-loading is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of starting at one. You can fix this by starting at a higher level, by not allowing multiclassing, or by having a completely separate class writeup for people who multiclass in.
One of these is better than the others.
-
2012-09-06, 04:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
And what's wrong with starting with some ability? Normal people know how to do things that other normal people don't. That's skill points and a feat.
So you're insisting on infinitely better again? But that's STILL WRONG, you get half a point of save bonus per class level. How many levels do you need at that rate to have a +2 and get another +1 next level? Five.
Level 0 spells are a full level, and you get them ALL in your spellbook for free.
No, your objections are based on "but this is the way it is" to a proposal about "this is the way it SHOULD BE". By your method of counting level 1 is INFINITELY better than every other level, because you ignore fractional accounting for things. You arbitrarily declare level 0 spells to not be a level of spells, you appeal to a houserule.
You don't think front-loading abilities MIGHT, just MIGHT have SOMETHING to do with the fact that characters start at level 1?
Front-loading is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of starting at one. You can fix this by starting at a higher level, by not allowing multiclassing, or by having a completely separate class writeup for people who multiclass in.
One of these is better than the others.Jude P.
-
2012-09-06, 06:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I'm passingly familiar with Champions, and I think I get your point (that a system with no fluff can work), but this isn't Champions (or GURPs, etc)... this is D&D.
From my POV, part of what makes D&D attractive to me personally is the baseline flavor, such as the cosmology of Inner and Outer Planes, the grumpy Dwarf, the haughty Elf, etc. It helps me have a common expected starting point from which to build upon.
Perhaps that is me and me alone... I am guessing that there are many others who feel the same way to more or less degrees, but of course that is just my guess.
-
2012-09-06, 07:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
You can fix this by starting at a higher level, by not allowing multiclassing, or by having a completely separate class writeup for people who multiclass in.
You class defines your core, it is who you are at the most basic level. Then have feats encompass minor versions of class features and be available to all (much the way "Arcane Dabbler" does now). Are you a fighter that does some magic, great, take Arcane Dabbler and maybe later on (at higher levels) some feats might grant you some regular level spells too, but you will never be as good as the wizard at spells. Similarly, want to be a wizard that mixes it up from time to time, take some feats that maybe give you access to some better HP, AC or to-hits, and maybe at higher levels, limited CS dice, but you will never be as good as a real fighter. Eliminates the problems with front loading without having to deal with starting at a higher level (and all that entails) and gets rid of nasty experience progression issues too.
From my POV, part of what makes D&D attractive to me personally is the baseline flavor, such as the cosmology of Inner and Outer Planes, the grumpy Dwarf, the haughty Elf, etc. It helps me have a common expected starting point from which to build upon.
Perhaps that is me and me alone... I am guessing that there are many others who feel the same way to more or less degrees, but of course that is just my guess.
-
2012-09-06, 08:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Might be interesting One addition--those feats shouldn't be available to the classes they're based on. A wizard taking a feat that lets mundanes cast would be a little silly and might be exploitable.
I agree, I'm happy with light flavor in D&D. If I want to play GURPS, I'll play GURPS, but I want D&D, which includes some basic shared tropes.Jude P.
-
2012-09-06, 08:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
D&D is both. The mechanics vary, but only within very narrow constraints. The core attributes have barely changed, the core classes have barely changed, even the number of levels has been mostly stable, in an industry where widely disparate mechanics can mean that things like "attributes", "classes", and "levels" don't exist, model something utterly disconnected to what the game models, or exist in a number of very different forms. There are shared mechanics, and judging by the backlash to 4e on account of how much it changed I suspect most people would say that changing that basic feel means that they might as well play a different RPG.
I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2012-09-06, 08:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
-
2012-09-06, 10:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Might be interesting One addition--those feats shouldn't be available to the classes they're based on. A wizard taking a feat that lets mundanes cast would be a little silly and might be exploitable.
-
2012-09-06, 10:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Yeah, I guess that would be alright. In 3.X the feats Extra Slot and Extra Spell seemed fairly underpowered that I saw (except in cases of cheese and shenanigans). So maybe offering two spells and slots would be acceptable. Possibly add the condition "up to one level lower than your highest existing level" for casting classes?
Jude P.
-
2012-09-06, 10:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I also buy the books for the mechanics, but I love it when they put story into mechanics. A dwarf's Stonecunning ability is very fun when it comes up in play, and if you're playing in a setting in which dwarves don't live underground, it's pretty easy to make up a parallel feature for that setting. Sure, they could have gone with a Stand Your Ground type ability, but it would be more bland.
That said, I write my own settings. A book can go on and on about Arkhosia and Bael Turath, but I'll still tell my players that dragonborn almost always live in small mountain tribes, while tieflings are rarely born from human mothers (for various reasons) and usually never even meet another of their kind, much less form an entire kingdom of them. I only bought the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide because the swordmage is so freaking awesome. So I hope they focus less on telling us about their setting, and instead give us the tools to create our own.Dubhshlaine, Elf Mage, in Eberron D&D 4e
DM for Feiticeiro's Ergodic Dungeon (Always Open!), In-Game
-
2012-09-06, 11:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
So I hope they focus less on telling us about their setting, and instead give us the tools to create our own.
-
2012-09-07, 12:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
It's a hard balance. Many of my favorite RPG settings are intrinsically tied to the rules system and visa-verse. Paranoia and L5R come to mind, and I have never played an RPG I liked that didn't assume some setting information.
I liked how the 3e core rulebooks handled it, most of the information was generic fantasy setting info, with a few little bits of flavor thrown in, notably some greyhawk gods."Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."
-Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion
-
2012-09-07, 01:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
How about this:
Spell Study
Prerequisite: Int 15, Level 3
Benefit: You gain the ability to memorize and cast a wizard spell. If you are already a wizard, you gain an extra spell slot of the appropriate level. Otherwise, you gain the wizard spellcasting and spellbook abilities, and may memorize any single spell of the appropriate level each day.
{table=head]Level|Spell Level
3-4|1
5-6|2
7-8|3
9-10|4
11-12|5
13-14|6
15-16|7
17-18|8
19-20|9[/table]
Basically, you're supposed to always be 1 spell level behind what a wizard can cast at the same level. From the look of the wizard spell chart, level 10 is the max spell level now, so you'd never get the highest spell level. This may be too strong, but it could just as easily offer a spell 2 levels below what a wizard can cast at that level.Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-09-07 at 01:58 AM.
5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-09-07, 01:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."
-Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion
-
2012-09-07, 07:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I hadn't noticed that... are there 10th Level spells in 4e? In the previous editions, if I'm remembering correctly, spells topped out at 9th Level (and in 2e and earlier, at 7th Level for Clerics, IIRC). I never understood why.
That reminds me - I wish they would come up with a new term for caster level and spell level... it could be confusing at times trying to differentiate the two for new players.
-
2012-09-07, 07:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Jude P.
-
2012-09-07, 07:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
And the thing is, I hate those kinds of mechanics. Why should my dwarf who grew up in a human city know any more about stonecutting than the average human? What is there in dwarven physiology that actually makes them inherently better at stonecutting, or recognizing the culture that worked a given piece of stone?
These are things that come from study, not native instinct. They are things that should be represented via background, or knowledge skills. I would have no problem with them providing a list of racial backgrounds, and said "Most dwarves have this background" etc, but those things should definitely be interchangeable. And by making it interchangeable you make it infinitely easier to adapt to a new campaign setting, because you simply introduce new backgrounds for that setting rather than needing to rewrite each race, or force each race to adhere to the traditional conventions.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2012-09-07, 07:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
That's fair, and would probably be the best idea for mechanics.
However, the idea of things like Stonecunning is probably from Tolkien, where a god crafted dwarves of earth or something like that. (It's been a few years since I read Tolkien.) So they have an affinity for earth and stone, the ability to notice irregularities in stone, worked stone, hidden doors, stuff like that.Jude P.